[Archived] Rovers Takeover

[ada2020]

you are not comparing Allardyce with Shankley are you?

No, not at all, just injecting some deadpan wit into this tedious and frustrating thread.

[den]

Indian businessman Ahsan Ali Syed and Saurin Shah are two known rival bidders, with an unnamed bidder also believed to be well advanced in his efforts, as activity continues behind the scenes.

Don Mackay:

Be careful about a take-over,

[TimmyJimmy]

Not exactly sure where I'm going with this post but after reading some of the concerns on here and then reading about the motivations for a possible LFC takeover it got me thinking about our definition of a perfect owner. Clearly Jack is no longer around and neither are other investors like him so we can only choose from the guys that are available. These drop into two camps, just enough cash/clean background/honest intent, and the billionaires/chequered background/intent unknown.

We already have an owner who is in camp one ie the Trust plus another in waiting, Surin Shah. Like attracts like perhaps.

If we are not content with this kind of owner we must dip into camp two. To my understanding all our other current bidders fall into this category. They're all wadded, they all have histories which have been challenged one way or another (including Mr Mystery), and they all leave us scratching our head as to why they want to invest in our club.

So, given that the majority on here wish for a change of ownership which characteristics define a good owner for us (no wishing for the moon). Loads of cash, good intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash, unknown intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash and everything else unknown?

As I said I believe all of our bidders share some blend of these characteristics so do we stay 'holier than thou' and bat them all off or take the investment and ignore the character challenges that will inevitably be examined in the media and elsewhere post takeover.

It's a choice I don't envy the Trust/Board and that's probably a factor in the long time cycle to completion, it's a toughie.

So no counsels of perfection please but what would you settle for, status quo or the least dodgy background?

[bellamy11]

Not exactly sure where I'm going with this post but after reading some of the concerns on here and then reading about the motivations for a possible LFC takeover it got me thinking about our definition of a perfect owner. Clearly Jack is no longer around and neither are other investors like him so we can only choose from the guys that are available. These drop into two camps, just enough cash/clean background/honest intent, and the billionaires/chequered background/intent unknown.

We already have an owner who is in camp one ie the Trust plus another in waiting, Surin Shah. Like attracts like perhaps.

If we are not content with this kind of owner we must dip into camp two. To my understanding all our other current bidders fall into this category. They're all wadded, they all have histories which have been challenged one way or another (including Mr Mystery), and they all leave us scratching our head as to why they want to invest in our club.

So, given that the majority on here wish for a change of ownership which characteristics define a good owner for us (no wishing for the moon). Loads of cash, good intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash, unknown intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash and everything else unknown?

As I said I believe all of our bidders share some blend of these characteristics so do we stay 'holier than thou' and bat them all off or take the investment and ignore the character challenges that will inevitably be examined in the media and elsewhere post takeover.

It's a choice I don't envy the Trust/Board and that's probably a factor in the long time cycle to completion, it's a toughie.

So no counsels of perfection please but what would you settle for, status quo or the least dodgy background?

An owner who could maintain the status quo but give us £5m or so a year in funds on top of what we can raise as a trading club is more than good enough for me, TJ.

[Amo]

An owner who could maintain the status quo but give us £5m or so a year in funds on top of what we can raise as a trading club is more than good enough for me, TJ.

Well said. £5-10m a year could go a long way in the right hands. I said as much when the takeover debate started and no-one was interested. Of course, in an ideal world we'd have a large honeypot, but that's a dangerous game to play without the right man.

[MikeB]

Not exactly sure where I'm going with this post but after reading some of the concerns on here and then reading about the motivations for a possible LFC takeover it got me thinking about our definition of a perfect owner. Clearly Jack is no longer around and neither are other investors like him so we can only choose from the guys that are available. These drop into two camps, just enough cash/clean background/honest intent, and the billionaires/chequered background/intent unknown.

We already have an owner who is in camp one ie the Trust plus another in waiting, Surin Shah. Like attracts like perhaps.

If we are not content with this kind of owner we must dip into camp two. To my understanding all our other current bidders fall into this category. They're all wadded, they all have histories which have been challenged one way or another (including Mr Mystery), and they all leave us scratching our head as to why they want to invest in our club.

So, given that the majority on here wish for a change of ownership which characteristics define a good owner for us (no wishing for the moon). Loads of cash, good intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash, unknown intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash and everything else unknown?

As I said I believe all of our bidders share some blend of these characteristics so do we stay 'holier than thou' and bat them all off or take the investment and ignore the character challenges that will inevitably be examined in the media and elsewhere post takeover.

It's a choice I don't envy the Trust/Board and that's probably a factor in the long time cycle to completion, it's a toughie.

So no counsels of perfection please but what would you settle for, status quo or the least dodgy background?

Status quo is not really an option otherwise we are likely to shrivel-up and almost die!

Everything in life is a risk - what job do you take, which house do you buy, which woman do you marry.

You just have to evaluate the options, pros and cons and, hopefully, make the right judgement.

Re Mr Mystery - my guess is that he's likely to prove to be as clean as a whistle and both a 'strong and safe option' and I still think that S.B. Mittal is involved in some shape or form.

[JAL]

So, given that the majority on here wish for a change of ownership which characteristics define a good owner for us (no wishing for the moon). Loads of cash, good intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash, unknown intent, dodgy background? Loads of cash and everything else unknown?

As I said I believe all of our bidders share some blend of these characteristics so do we stay 'holier than thou' and bat them all off or take the investment and ignore the character challenges that will inevitably be examined in the media and elsewhere post takeover.

It's a choice I don't envy the Trust/Board and that's probably a factor in the long time cycle to completion, it's a toughie.

So no counsels of perfection please but what would you settle for, status quo or the least dodgy background?

For me timmyjimmy, a new owner should be coming from one of the current board members, otherwise what on earth are they doing there on the board in the first place.

[Iceman]

Things are moving at quite a pace, talks to continue next week

[TimmyJimmy]

An owner who could maintain the status quo but give us £5m or so a year in funds on top of what we can raise as a trading club is more than good enough for me, TJ.

So the money's background holds no interest for us? Drugs, theft, prostitution, tax evasion etc.?

This is going to the furthest extreme of course just to make the point, but as I said I believe all our bidders will have certain challenges to face in this regard. Are we bothered? Is money a sufficient qualification or are we demanding an exemplary background? If so, how exemplary is exemplary? Is a bit of tax evasion OK for example, is a dirty flat OK?

MikeB ... "Re Mr Mystery - my guess is that he's likely to prove to be as clean as a whistle and both a 'strong and safe option'", it'll be interesting to see how that one pans out but you seem more optimistic than me on this one. As for S.B. Mittal, we'll never know (publically) but I still stand by my 'cat' comment Just my opinion of course.

[S15]

So the money's background holds no interest for us? Drugs, theft, prostitution, tax evasion etc.?

Exactemundo baby.

[gumboots]

So the money's background holds no interest for us? Drugs, theft, prostitution, tax evasion etc.?

This is going to the furthest extreme of course just to make the point, but as I said I believe all our bidders will have certain challenges to face in this regard. Are we bothered? Is money a sufficient qualification or are we demanding an exemplary background? If so, how exemplary is exemplary? Is a bit of tax evasion OK for example, is a dirty flat OK?

MikeB ... "Re Mr Mystery - my guess is that he's likely to prove to be as clean as a whistle and both a 'strong and safe option'", it'll be interesting to see how that one pans out but you seem more optimistic than me on this one. As for S.B. Mittal, we'll never know (publically) but I still stand by my 'cat' comment Just my opinion of course.

I don't for one minute think there's any business that has never cut corners and most businessmen I've met have some kind of skeletons in their cupboard, but yes, I'd like my money to have a traceable history that is relatively clean. So no to illegal drugs etc. Tax evasion - depends whether that's a bit of creative accounting and easily sorted or whether it's major fraud. In an ideal world I'd like the money to be whiter than white and the owner too but I'm realistic enough to know that's not how it works.

[HemelRover]

So the money's background holds no interest for us? Drugs, theft, prostitution, tax evasion etc.?

There isnt a Billionaire alive who doesnt do this.

[bellamy11]

In an ideal world I'd like the money to be whiter than white and the owner too.

I'm sure you would, Grand Wizard.

[iamarover]

There isnt a Billionaire alive who doesnt do this.

Billionaires avoid tax. Which is legal. Very few of them evade it. Which isn't. A small point but a critical one if assessing the suitability of the Rover Prince Charming. And the truth is, as Nicko suspects, none of them are. I would wager that Jack's legacy is too onerous to carry... in effect he is asking for people to donate money to the Rovers with strict rules on taking any subsequent money out. Anyone who signs up to that is either a barking fan, a raving egotist, or a criminal. We've had the first already and there won't be another one. The other two, I for one, will pass on.

In a sense Rovers are trapped in a gilded cage. The Indian plan to take Rovers to the sub continent might be a project to get some of their up front cash back. If they honestly believe that, then a modern day Don Quixote of thecomebackid fame, rides again - this time in Blackburn. But if that is their dream then that is theirs to have. However, the Trust is almost certainly holding them to a commitment not to take out any cash should their tilting at Mumbai windmills be ultimately as fruitless as those of medieval Andalusia. The Jersey Boys are not selling to anyone, because, in effect, they can't.

Enjoy the Trust's sunflower seeds, people. There will be no one taking us out of here. And with their honest protection the chance to bite the hands of the bigger beasts in the zoo will always remain. For Lancashire's premier club the horror alternative sits at the two ends of the East Lancs road. And that, my friends, is the road to Hell.

[Iceman]

1 thing is certain, if we have a billionaire owner and we have money to spend, the arguments will stil be here to stay. only difference is, that we will argue about whether we should go for Torres or Villa, Iniesta or Robben. if no no takeover happens, then its Andrews or Grella. either way, this is the best message board in the whole wide world.

[gumboots]

I'm sure you would, Grand Wizard.

Don't care about skin colour as those who know me would know, but morally, I'd like there to be no blots on his/her copy book - just to please any other pcs out there.

[ada2020]

I'm sure you would, Grand Wizard.

Hardly any call for that, I think we know the context in which that comment was meant to be taken.

[bellamy11]

Hardly any call for that, I think we know the context in which that comment was meant to be taken.

I think we know the context in which my jovial remark was meant to be taken.

[gumboots]

I think we know the context in which my jovial remark was meant to be taken.

Can I just say i personally didn't take offence - just used a stock phrase and didn't notice how it read. Happens quite often to most of us.

[whalleyrover]

Heard a rumour that Syed is looking to invest in Everton, has Nicko or anyone heard anything. I hope that the Trust have not got greedy by expecting an auction for the club.

[jodrell]

Heard a rumour that Syed is looking to invest in Everton, has Nicko or anyone heard anything. I hope that the Trust have not got greedy by expecting an auction for the club.

Or are the Mysterons close to a done deal?

[philipl]

Somebody put that Everton rumour on the LT chat section quite a few days ago but this is the first time it has recycled.

From those speaking with Julia Thiem, I understand that is not how WGA see life.

Everton has a similar problem to Liverpool. Anyone buying them needs to find around £120m to sort out existing debts and obligations before the exiting shareholders collect any profit and there is the little matter of a new stadium required. So something over £400m is needed before you even begin to start on transfers and players' wages- chuck in another £160m and you can get Liverpool and a similar set of issues!

Makes the Rovers look an absolute bargain.

[ada2020]

I think we know the context in which my jovial remark was meant to be taken.

Fair enough, my apologies. I clearly took it the wrong way.

[chaddyrovers]

Somebody put that Everton rumour on the LT chat section quite a few days ago but this is the first time it has recycled.

From those speaking with Julia Thiem, I understand that is not how WGA see life.

Everton has a similar problem to Liverpool. Anyone buying them needs to find around £120m to sort out existing debts and obligations before the exiting shareholders collect any profit and there is the little matter of a new stadium required. So something over £400m is needed before you even begin to start on transfers and players' wages- chuck in another £160m and you can get Liverpool and a similar set of issues!

Makes the Rovers look an absolute bargain.

Everton are a good club but have too much debt and they need a new stadium. Rovers are absoulute bargain for 45 million pounds. 25 million for the club and 20 million for the debt. Rovers don't need a new stadium because of our fan base. Also you could expand the riverside stand to a 2 tier stand. And that would take the Stadium to around 37000 capacity. If rovers are to be taken over, I think one of the first thing a new owner would do is to market the club, by getting more sponsorship from Asia and Far East. More pre season overseas tours to India, Australia, Japan and China. That would increase revenue in the club. Which would give us more more to spend on players. What is a good thing.

[Brfcrule1]

iceman wrote:Things are moving at quite a pace, talks to continue next week

do you have something concrete or is that just a wild guess if you have some info does it include Syed or a mystery party?